Every category where a model named UpGuard BreachSight for a mid-market B2B company. Share is first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts; rank is within every product named in that category.

Category	Function	Share	Rank	Negative rate	Labels	Quadrant
Attack surface management	Security operations	2%	6 of 104	0%	14	accepted challenger

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for UpGuard BreachSight yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated UpGuard BreachSight across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	1	1	2
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	1	0	1
Perplexity Sonar	1	0	1	2
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	1	1	2
Mistral Small	0	1	0	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	0	1	1	2
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0	0
Kimi K2	0	0	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	2	2	4
MiniMax M2.5	0	0	0	0

By framing

Which of the six questions produced the naming. By model says how often; this says asked what. The first-choice count on the right carries the marks of the models that produced it.

FramingLabels by classFirst choices

Direct8 labels1

Paraphrase10 labels2

Comparative8 labelsNone

Budget-constrained3 labelsNone

Scale-constrained5 labelsNone

Negative2 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative36 labels in all, every segment counted; 3 of the 3 first choices count toward share, since the comparative and negative framings do not. The bar is one segment per label class, to scale within the framing.

What the models said for it

Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.

“I'd recommend UpGuard as the default choice ... best value option for SMB and mid-market teams” Perplexity Sonar · ASM · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“Best For: B2B companies that need to manage both their own external attack surface and their third-party vendor risks.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · ASM · paraphrase prompt · alternative

“External attack-surface and breach-risk monitoring built for mid-market organizations with lean security teams.” Llama 4 Maverick · ASM · paraphrase prompt · alternative

“UpGuard Breach Risk takes a three-surface approach combining external asset discovery, dark web monitoring” Claude Haiku 4.5 · ASM · direct prompt · alternative

And against it

Verbatim evidence attached to negative labels. A warning on a product with few labels is a warning; on a product with many, it is one voice among them.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as UpGuard BreachSight, over the 36 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and UpGuard BreachSight was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Intruder25 of 3619Not in the top three

Detectify22 of 363Not in the top three

CyCognito19 of 361Not in the top three

Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management18 of 360Not in the top three

Cortex Xpanse16 of 360Not in the top three

Censys ASM11 of 360Not in the top three

Bitsight8 of 363Not in the top three

Attaxion8 of 360Not in the top three

CrowdStrike Falcon Surface7 of 360Not in the top three

Synack6 of 362Not in the top three

A head-to-head page exists where both products are in a category's top three. The other rows are the same fact without a page behind them, so they link to the product instead.

What carried it into the answer

The sites and pages cited by the answers that named UpGuard BreachSight. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.

Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, four of the twelve in this edition, so these counts come from 33 of the 36 answers that named UpGuard BreachSight and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

upguard.comYour site28

synack.com26

wiz.io20

guideflow.com18

cyberbench.net17

gartner.com17

bitsight.com15

g2.com15

geekflare.com14

paloaltonetworks.com13

155 of the 183 domain citations in answers naming UpGuard BreachSight came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

synack.com/blog/best-attack-surface-management-tools26

upguard.com/blog/best-attack-surface-management-software-solutions26

wiz.io/academy/cloud-security/attack-surface-management-tools19

guideflow.com/blog/attack-surface-management-software18

cyberbench.net/blog/best-easm-platforms-mid-market-202617

bitsight.com/guides/best-external-attack-surface-management-platforms-for-global-enterpris15

gartner.com/reviews/market/external-attack-surface-management15

geekflare.com/cybersecurity/best-attack-surface-monitoring14

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as UpGuard BreachSight

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as UpGuard BreachSight; a claim can dispute any of them.

UpGuard 6UpGuard Breach Risk 3UpGuard (Breach Risk) 2

Is this your product?

Claim this page

Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page shows a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes and when UpGuard BreachSight's standing changes by more than the noise floor; the right to propose corrections to the vendor table, meaning names the judge wrote that should or should not read as UpGuard BreachSight, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

It does not get any change to labels, shares or verdicts, any preview, or any say over which quotes appear. A verification link goes to your work email; an address at upguard.com is approved on the spot, any other address is reviewed by hand.

Your name and company appear on the claimed page, or the company alone if you ask below. A title and a LinkedIn address appear there too if you give them, and are left off if you do not. Your email address is never published.